From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Pets of Vladimir Putin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested, article is unnotable — JJ Be rs 17:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep we already have articles on individual and groups of similar animals:

Putin is famous for his manly poses with horses, tigers and other animals. Legacypac ( talk) 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

he's got 9 lives to use up Legacypac ( talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Legacypac. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment page is pulling avg 207 views a day. That suggests notability and that people are searching for it. [1] Legacypac ( talk) 02:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    Not necessarily. I came to it through ANI. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Views from last week aren't from ANi. follow link Legacypac ( talk) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
There are other links here. [2] It is all irrelevant anyway as this does not prove notability. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced per WP:GNG, notwithstanding WP:OSE. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep But I honestly feel like the majority people who have spoken here didn't actually read the article, and if they did they did absolutely nothing to improve it. It was full of links to YouTube videos and the bulk of the information was about wild animals and charities. Reflexively voting keep an article with copyrighted material and vast amounts of off topic information without improving the article hurts the encyclopedia. AniMate 23:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I analyize the validity of the topic, and general state of the article, without regard to the possibility of editing improvements. Yup it needs cleanup and thanks. Legacypac ( talk)<
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.